Re: MARID back from the grave?

... "it's just a name" - and it's not like working groups are (or that 
working groups should be) consistent in when they adopt a draft as a 
working group draft.
I see this as a bigger problem - some working groups that have more 
work in individual drafts than in working group drafts, because they 
wait until they have substantial consensus around drafts before even 
adopting them, while other working groups create initial text as 
working group drafts and then start wordsmithing from there - but 
haven't found anyone else that was interested in formalizing what it 
means when working groups adopt a draft.
My particular interest was as part of ICAR - I was thinking that 
there's a blizzard of individual drafts, but if something is adopted 
as a working group draft, it starts to absorb working group and AD 
time (at a minumum), so this transition point might be a good 
opportunity for a formal review.
But ICAR won't be worrying about this topic anytime in the foreseeable 
future :-)
Spencer

From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Tony Hansen" <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>; "John C Klensin" 
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: MARID back from the grave?

.................................................

It's just a name.

d/
--
Dave Crocker 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf